It's the doublethink of someone who's trying to assert an argument for reasons under than actually understanding the technical question, or caring about the tec

It's the doublethink of someone who's trying to assert an argument for reasons under than actually understanding the technical question, or caring about the technical answer; and sees no problem in taking two different rhetorical paths to get that predetermined conclusion, even if they're mutually contradictory. (It's also like the legal concept of "pleading in the alternative" (?): "my client never borrowed that car; and it was already damaged when he received it; and he returned it in perfect condition". Permissible for defense lawyers—utterly discrediting for journalists).